Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alalch E. (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 8 January 2023 (→Issues: more thoughts about merger). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Armenia Low‑importance Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Azerbaijan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

Hi, check on p.7 of the French source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

More,

"He also mentions Vladimir Stankevich's 1921 book titled The Fate of the Peoples of Russia (Судьба народов России) whereby Stankevich writes that the "angry and defeated" Russian army was "robbing and pillaging the Muslim population" and that as a result, 200 Muslim villages had been destroyed. Hasanli also writes of a 1922 memoir by Boris Baykov who wrote that Muslim villages were exclusively targeted during these events. Mustafa Kemal, the leader of the Turkish National Movement, in justifying an invasion of Armenia, stated that reportedly nearly 200 villages were burned by Armenians and most of their 135,000 inhabitants were "eliminated"."

See Hasanli, Foreign Policy of the Republic of Azerbaijan: The Difficult Road to Western Integration, 1918-1920. pp. 18-19

"In January 1918, a bloody conflict with heavy casualties took place at Shamkhor Station between Russian soldiers and government forces. Stepan Shaumian made an attempt to relate the events that took place from the ninth to the January to counterrevolutionary activity by Musavat party. However, the actual situation was very different. Having taken into consideration that the Russian army, moving toward Baku, would serve the Bolsheviks, or at least would provide them arms and military supplies, the South Caucasian Commissariat considered it necessary to disarm them, and it passed as resolution ordering the disarmament of Russian soldiers. The Azerbaijani population was suffering the most from the return of the Russian army. Vladimir Stankevich, in his work The Fate of the Peoples of Russia, wrote that the retreating Russian army, angry and defeated was robbing and pillaging the Muslim population. According to reports, 200 Muslim villages were destroyed in the course of this operation."

Unrelated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hasanli clearly states "The Azerbaijani population was suffering the most from the return of the Russian army" before mentioning the destruction of 200 villages, I can't see how it's not relevant to the article as it falls within the period of massacres/deportations (from 1917 to 1921). – Olympian 03:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless those 200 villages were within the region this article cover, it is outside of the scope of the article. You worded it, as if those 200 villages were within the region.

There is more:

The article stats: "The British Chief Commissioner of Transcaucasia, Oliver Wardrop, wrote in a report that "Armenians had destroyed sixty Muslim villages in New Bayazit, Alexandropol, and Erivan provinces"."

But check p. 268 of Hasanli book

"As the completion of the withdrawal of British troops from the Caucasus drew near, at the end of August, a mission consisting of White, Malligan, Grandy, and one more person under the leadership of Mr. Wardrop came to Tiflis. The decision of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on appointment of Mr. Wardrop as British High Commissioner to the South Caucasus was delivered to the government of Azerbaijan on August 22.

Thus, a new stage for Azerbaijan, a new and fundamentally different Caucasus, began. After starting his work in Tiflis, on September 27, Wardrop left for Baku accompanied by White, the member of the British mission; Fariz Bey Vakilov, diplomatic representative of Azerbaijan to Georgia; and G. Alshibaya, diplomatic representative of Georgia to Azerbaijan. On September 28, he was met at Baku railway station by Hammad Yusif Jafarov, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and other official persons. During his visit, Wardrop met with Nasib Usubbeyov, Prime Minister; Jafarov, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Khudadat Bey Malik-Aslanov, Minister of Roads; General Ali Agha Shikhlinski, Deputy Defense Minister; Mammad Sadikh Aghabeyov, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs; and other officials. In his report on his visit to Baku sent to London on October 2, Wardrop wrote:

The people and government of this country hold Great Britain in high esteem, unlike any other. The prime minister’s position is quite firm. If we would help them, they will cooperate with Britain. I have a high opinion of the frankness of Mr. Usubbeyov and his ability to control the policy of his country. We both have strong hope in the future development of our relations.

During his visit to Baku, the British High Commissioner was fully informed about the brutalities committed by Armenians in Azerbaijan and the entire South Caucasus. In his report to London, he wrote, “Azerbaijanis have reported that with help of Bolsheviks, local Armenians have killed a great number of the Muslim population.” According to them, Shaumian was a “false Bolshevic.” In his report, Wardrop added that just recently Armenians had destroyed sixty Muslim villages in New Bayazit, Alexandropol, and Erivan provinces."

Check the difference in wording of what Hansanli writes and his quoting of Wardrop (Azerbaijanis have reported).

Fin a proper wording, because the article wording is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

" In dealing with "troublesome" Muslim bands in Etchmiadzin, Armenian militias looted Muslim villages along the railway, forcing their inhabitants to flee across the Aras river—in an instance of this, the men of six Muslim villages were massacred and the women distributed to the "Armenian warriors"."

Hi, perhaps, wrong edition? I don't find it at the said page, here: https://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/bitstream/1234/228216/1/The_Republic_Of_Armenia_Volume_II.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, it's been fixed. The relevant passage is on page 180 of the second volume which you've linked:

It had just been learned, for example, that the men of six villages had been massacred and their womenfolk distributed to the “Armenian warriors.” Azerbaijan could no longer tolerate such atrocities or acquiesce in the loss of a part of its land and people.

Regards, – Olympian 23:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, there is still the problem of the scope of the article. In the casualties section you included a list consisting of Erivan Governorate, Surmalu uezd, Kars Oblast, Zangezur uezd, however the map provided on that section includes only the current Armenian border. I don't know how this consistency issue could be dealth with, unless either the scope of the article or the title are changed. The text starts with Azerbaijanis in Armenia that links to another article about Azerbaijanis inhabiting the region now part of Armenia. However this article convers currently just more than the Republic border, unlike what the title asserts. It's cynical, to include Kars-Surmalu, where Muslim refugees returned, while Armenians did not, in fact, about half of the Armenians in the Surmalu uezd perished of starvation. LikesBanana (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Armenia was significantly truncated (the losses of Kars and Surmalu to Turkey and Sharur–Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan) since the ethnic cleansing and massacres occurred, so the best maps available (as included in the article) only indicate the territory of present-day Armenia, or rather, the Armenian SSR. There's not much that can be done to rectify this unless an editor experienced in the subject draws up another map that shows the ethnography all concerned regions, not just present-day Armenia. I don't think it's reasonable to reduce the scope of the article based on the availability of maps – I'm sure most would agree that in the case of Misplaced Pages, reliable sources are paramount in deciding the article's scope. Regards, – Olympian 02:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Part about Nakhchivan

Hi User:Olympian, I think this sentence needs reworking:

• Nakhchivan, which was allotted to the Azerbaijan SSR, was "literally depopulated and turned into a desert" and "almost a third of the Muslim population" fled to Iran

This creates the false impression that Nakhchivan had been depopulated solely due to the massacre and flight of the Muslim population. The massacre of the Armenian population of Nakhchivan in the same period either needs to be mentioned here (for example, "Nakhchivan, where both the Armenian and Azerbaijani populations had been subjected to massacres, was "literally depopulated and turned into a desert"...) or it should be put differently. Revolution Saga (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for the suggestion. I liked your wording so I added something like that, and I believe page 4 of the Broers source will be sufficient to reference the facts that Armenians in Nakhchivan were ethnically cleansed:

"Reliable numbers are elusive, but Ottoman Turkish–Azerbaijani forces killed or drove out many thousands of Armenians from Nakhichevan …"

Regards, – Olympian 03:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The Map: Distribution of Azerbaijanis in modern borders of Armenia

The map in this article has the title: "Own work based on the map of A. Tsutsiyev (2004) (АТЛАС ЭТНОПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ИСТОРИИ КАВКАЗА, Цуциев А.А, Москва: Издательство «Европа», 2007)"

It does not seem possible to reconstruct this map from the linked source (where the URL goes). Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research. Humanatbest (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Issues

I made comments on the Good article nominations page (current #25 in World history) concerning issues that include grammatical errors and stability. The article fails several points, not only for consideration of GA but a premature assessment of B-class. Title: Currently: Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921. When using a single year "in" 1917 would be proper. When using multiple years "from" 1917–1921 would be more correct; as in Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia from 1917–1921. Otr500 (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Otr500, I couldn't find your comment on the Good Article nominations page, would you mind linking them, please? I'd also be useful to know what points the article fails on as the grammar in the article is seemingly sound and the article title itself was already fixed on 30 December (the years were moved into parenthesis: ). Regards, – Olympian 07:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I added it here, and a bot removed it a little over two hours later. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Otr500 you wrote that the article fails the criteria of being well-written and verifiable with no original research. Could you please clarify exactly what in the article is poorly written and what parts are original research? The only evidence to support the latter was one poorly-worded sentence which was immediately deleted – everything else in the article is carefully sourced and I'm willing to stand by that should anyone like to attempt to verify it. Regards, – Olympian 11:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I will need some patience. My gaming laptop went down and I am on an old Windows 7 likely built for Fred Flintstone.

I have full intentions of listing issues that I consider needing attention. I get slowed down by health issues and running across things like the opening sentence of the background section: "Following the Russian annexation of Iranian Armenia...". The link is to the Treaty of Turkmenchay, and the "Terms" section begins; "The terms of the Treaty of Turkmenchay can be found in here. as the following text is an unreliable abstract that can be edited by different biased sources: This is clear editorial bias, and I am pretty sure original research, that should be fixed as linking to it degrades an article.

I have not gone through the sourcing so that is not at issue ("everything else in the article is carefully sourced...") with me at this time. The mention of original research {#2 on the criteria) was actually for verifiability which would include quotes and WP:inline citations. The bot removed comments on the GA nomination were This article is not ready for a GA review failing criteria #1, #2, and #5. There are numerous sentence structural and grammatical errors, issues at an AFD shows referencing issues, and recent changes are evidence of instability. The article title could use grammatical improvements. This article was likely prematurely elevated to "B-class" failing #1 and #4. Any that have been rectified please ignore and the corrected title is good.

Weasel wording (Unsupported attributions): The third paragraph of the lead starts: "Soviet historians estimate",

The "Aftermath" section includes "According to British reports" (again "which"),

The "Soviet historiography" (2nd to last sentence) uses "A Soviet Armenian source writes". I didn't follow the source but unless written recently it is likely past tense. Clarity would suggest naming the source and including quotes with in-text_attribution.

In the "Erivan Governorate and Kars Oblast" section (3rd to last sentence): The Central Muslim National Committee of the South-West Caucasus in Kars on August 1919 writes that Armenian forces put to fire 38 villages in Surmalu, affecting 3,500 people and leaving 40,000 homeless. This is converted to Misplaced Pages language, "writes" is present tense, and something from 1919 would dictate past-tense.

The definite article (the) should be used for sentence flow and I am pretty sure I saw where it is missing in places. I will go over this and add any I find that is missing. The above comments is what I noticed on a first and fast read. Other than simple sentence corrections I will try to abstain from in-depth editing. Thanks for asking clarification. I have a double PE, off work, and on medication. If I make a questionable statement just continue to ask for clarification. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I stripped the article of primary and fringe sources pointed out in the AFD discussion. Per WP:ONUS, the reliability of sources needs to be established first. And given the multiple incidents of failed verification for sources in this article, we should establish what is reliable and what isn't before including it in the article. --Dallavid (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Just checked the Devastation book for the "killing spree" claim, Levene literally uses McCarthy as a source in the citation (203) for this. The article continues to fall apart with the smallest amount of verifying.

Levene also leaves a comment in his footnote for the McCarthy book that "though with the unfortunate corollary that McCarthy radically downplays the specifically Armenian catastrophe". There are other genocide deniers in the footnotes as well, such as Stanford J. Shaw and Guenter Lewy. Levene in general is very apologetic to Armenian genocide deniers in this book. --Dallavid (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dallavid If you have a problem with any of the sources used in the article, you're welcome to take it to WP:RSN. I couldn't have known about the origin of the Levene claim as I wasn't the one to add it originally—it came from Azerbaijanis in Armenia article which I partially worked on before moving its content into this article. In any case, it's been removed , thanks for pointing it out. – Olympian 01:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Olympian, I can not understand why you removed the source. Mark Levene is a well-known and respected historian. "Devastation: The European Rimlands 1912–1938" is published by Oxford University Press, which fact-checks its content and is peer reviewed. If some of its material is sourced from McCarthy, then it means that that specific part of McCarthy's research has been examined and found to be accurate by Levene and Oxford Press team. Any user who wants to challenge this Oxford-published reputable historian's book solely for the reason that the book references McCarthy should take the source to the RSN. A b r v a g l 14:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abrvagl, you may restore the Levene source and content if you wish, but if Dallavid challenges the source in RSN, I won't be defending it. – Olympian 09:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Olympian "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Other users in the AFD agreed with my concerns about these sources. --Dallavid (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dallavid, in the edit summary where you deleted over 10,000 bytes of content, you vaguely cited the two policies of WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY. In order to facilitate a constructive discussion, could you please individually list every source you deleted and outline your reasoning for deleting them? As far as I can see from the edit diff, you deleted the Baberovski and Hasanli sources from the bibliography, but also deleted content that referenced sources authored by Kaufman, Ovsepyan, Hovannisian (1982), Mammadov & Musayev, Coyle, Aharonian, La Temps, Tarasov, Volkova, Korkotyan, and Kazemzadeh (see the pre-revision version for the names of the sources by these authors: ) Moreover, you added the Taner Akçam source which was revealed in the AfD to be irrelevant to the scope of this article, please share your reasoning for adding that. If I haven't miscounted, there are 14 sources whose deletions/addition we'd like to see an explanation for. – Olympian 12:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• I missed this AfD but I don't see why this article topic should be separate from deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. It would make no more sense to have separate articles for deportation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915–1917 and massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915–1917. Additionally, the article title should be avoided as POV if there is any serious dispute that massacres occurred. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, the topic of this article is notable on its own outside of just the general deportations as is evident by the fact that this article is longer than the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia article itself. Moreover, the article mainly deals with killings and ethnic cleansing, not just deportations (which is the scope/focus of the "Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia" article). – Olympian 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong opinion what article title is best, having not examined the sources. I am just saying that an event that involved murder on a much larger scale than this one still does not make sense to separate out "massacres" from "deportation" and claim they are separate topics. (t · c) buidhe 17:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  These are completely different topics. Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia article is about the population transfer during the Soviet Union, and mainly talks about deportations during and immediately after the Soviet Union's collapse. Whereas this article is about massacres, not just deportations, that happened before the Soviet Union. A b r v a g l 18:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, as mentioned by others, the deportation of Azerbaijanis article has a completely different scope to this article—it focuses on deportation of Azeris since the late 40s and late 80s. On the other hand, this article is about the extermination of the Azeri, and by extension, Muslim populations of the First Republic of Armenia (which existed in the post-WW1 period, i.e. late 1910s). – Olympian 11:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  The deportation article currently covers multiple time periods including events during the First Republic of Armenia. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, the deportations article barely covers the First Republic of Armenia, its content is overwhelmingly focused on the aforementioned 40s and 80s deportations.

  Moreover, this article relates to massacres of Azeris and Muslims, not just deportations of Azeris. Applying your logic, would you support merging an article about a massacre of Jews in Palestine (1929 Hebron massacre) to an article about the expulsion of Jews from the Middle-East (Jewish exodus from the Muslim world)?

  Also, I think it's worth considering Misplaced Pages's Merge Test:

  1. Will a merge result in an article that violates article size guidelines?
  2. Will a merge require the removal of encyclopedic content?

  In a nutshell, "If a merge will result in an article too large to comfortably read or the deletion of encyclopedic content, it should not occur", which is also what WP:NOMERGE states: "Merging should be avoided if the resulting article would be too long or "clunky"". So, I don't see how a merge in this case improves Misplaced Pages. – Olympian 08:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  The merge result would not violate the article size guideline (WP:TOOBIG), because the readable prose of the combined article would be ~18kB (Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia is 11kB and this article is ~7kB). Even if the content Dallavid removed was restored, and everything in both articles was kept without any condensation due to overlapping/superseded content, it would still be under 60kB, which is when merger stops looking like a good idea due to size concerns. —Alalch E. 19:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  To continue, let's take how content about the SSR period deportations is organized on Misplaced Pages. The following section: Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia#Relocation from the Armenian SSR -- for which Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia (1947-1950) is the main article (i.e. daughter article to the parent article) -- is about the same length as the daughter article. The parent article would need to contain the information in a significantly more WP:SUMMARIZEd form to justify two levels of coverage. But it can't because if the content of 'Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia' was significantly shorter (in order to differentiate it in level of detail relative to the daughter article), it would become too short, and wouldn't serve any purpose at all. (So to justify a separate page for the SSR period, there would need to be at least a proposition of significant and forthcoming expansion of the daughter article.) In principle, covering things together whereby more context is provided is good; comprehensiveness is an encyclopedic virtue. This is why 'Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia (1947-1950)' should really be merged to the parent article.Same goes for this here article. It is similar in length to said parent article section, and also to the SSR period article. Its content would fit very appealingly in the parent article. There would be two core sections similar in length, for the two distinct but interrelated epochs. Right now there is a disbalance: the content about the pre-Soviet period is too short in the parent article, when it could be just as long, seeing how an approximately equal amount of unique content exists on both periods on Misplaced Pages -- the title "Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia" does not prioritize the later period. In terms of pure organization the merger proposal seems excellent to me. —Alalch E. 20:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. There is no reason to believe that "killings and ethnic cleansing" are noteworthy enough to merit their own article. We do not even have a reliable source for a total death amount; on the contrary we have a source confirming said figures were exaggerated or fabricated. Reliable sources mainly refer to displacement and refugees, not massacres. --Dallavid (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:buidhe, this article covers the massacres carried out by the First Armenian Republic. The article on deportation covers the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Armenian SSR, and then the post-1991 Armenia, and Artsakh. These are completely different things and failing to see this shocks me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.55.146 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Cont.

Hello and good day to you! I saw your edit summary on the Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917-1921) page and thought I'd give some context. All of the verifiability concerns raised in the discussion were already addressed. In terms of WP:BRD policy, the editor who removed the content failed to meet it, because referring to well-established and highly reputable sources like "Hovannisian, Richard G.: The Republic of Armenia: From Versailles to London" published by University of California Press as "WP:FRINGE / WP:PRIMARY" and literally deleting 1/3 of article without proper explanation is not being BOLD, but reckless. Moreover, the onus is on the editor who wants to delete already existing content to prove why they should be deleted, therefore BRD doesn't apply here. Considering this, would you please undo your edit? A b r v a g l 18:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the feedback. This article was created by Olympian from scratch. It was then nominated for deletion. During the month long AfD it was not seriously edited by other editors, who dispute its content based on a premise that it should be deleted (there were some minor attemps which were reverted), and was therefore in a suspended state in terms of its status regarding formation of consensus. The collaborative process hadn't started in full, and something like WP:EDITCON hasn't solidified at all.Adding all this content to the encyclopedia was a bold move that is disputed and is effectively subject to reverts, which come from concerns that need to be resolved on the talk page. It may ultimately be shown that some or all of the concerns are unfounded (in theory), but there is no reason to defend a particular version of the article during this period. When starting from a place of certainty in the validity of one's position it is better, and will have more long-lasting good effects, to, for example, use some dispute resolution venue like mediation, and reintroduce content that was disputed afterwards, than to defend a pre-written article on the grounds of "existing content".The rationales of objectors must be defeated not by defending "existing content" as if that is a value in itself (it is not), but by defeating their arguments through discussion (leading to a consensus), or by finding a compromise (also consensus). That's how I see it at least. —Alalch E. 23:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I identify the reasoning behind this edit as being located here. It doesn't look like these concerns were addressed. (What does Dallavid think about that?) Clearly the issue is with Baberowski and Hasanli. The edit removed practically all claims that depend on these authors' work. I suppose that it shouldn't be hard to isolate this issue for the time being in order to form the specific consensus regarding these sources. —Alalch E. 23:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Article classification

The article survived an AFD but there were issues noted there, as well as some in the "Issues" section above, that indicates this article fails B-class assessment. During the AFD the title was changed (considered inappropriate) and the parenthetical dates are questionable. This needs resolution to preclude a possible merger discussion. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I semi-protected the page for 3 months as arbitration enforcement. Ymblanter (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Armenian articles
• Low-importance Armenian articles
• WikiProject Armenia articles
• C-Class Azerbaijan articles
• Low-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles